Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well I won't be the first, not by far. Which paranormal "event" or "talent" would you like me to disprove first? You pick.
That's easy. Prove that I saw my shadow when I went outside a few minutes ago.
I will not accept an argument that I could have seen it.
I will not accept an argument that it was possible that I saw it.
I don't want the fact that millions of people see their shadows presented as evidence that I saw it.
I want proof that I saw it.
Or if you want to go the more difficult proving a negative route:
Prove that I didn't see a ghost in the hallway awhile ago.
Yeah, I won't bother with the shadow thing, you've shown that you think you can make the rules and you can't. You've been shown how that argument falls flat already so I'll skip it.
As for the ghost, that's easy.
Step 1. Are you claiming that you saw a ghost in the hallway?
That you can duplicate something is NOT proof that what I reported is what happened. Evidence and research is not always the same thing as proof. That scientists surmise the chemical makeup of stars based on light signatures and drawing informed assumptions is NOT testing the chemical makeup of those stars.
Believing everything a scientists tells us is so just because he says he has proved it is one way of acquiring knowledge, but in my opinion, that will continue to include flawed knowledge just as has been the case for all the millenia that humankind has been doing science. I doubt many days go by that some scientist doesn't discover something that what they once thought was decided wasn't so decided after all.
In a way I wish I could just trust and accept things as you do and be so secure that we already know what there is to know. I just am not made that way though. Too much natural curiosity and skepticism I guess. Too much hope that there is a future of knowledge that allows us to be better, more efficient, more effective, more constructive, more successful than what we are now. And too much evidence that there are dimensions and much phenomena that we cannot yet access and still poorly understand.
That's a rather silly way of stating things.
Scientists and those that trust in science in no way shape or form 'trust' what we know or believe that everything is just so because scientists say that is the way it is. In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false. It just happens to be much close to the truth than we were 100 years ago.
What you are describing is how FAITH works. It is the opposite of how science works.
You must understand that the pursuit of science is rooted in the quest for grater and grater knowledge. There is no proof that the paranormal, telekinesis or God don't exist (you can't prove a negative) but there is a lack of proof for those things as well. That people don't put their faith in them existing is not close minded or 'accepting' anything. It is simply acknowledging that you are not going to believe in something that has no proof for you whatsoever. As they say, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster now do you? I chose to believe in the things that I can prove.
Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.
I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.
What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.
And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.
That's a rather silly way of stating things.
Scientists and those that trust in science in no way shape or form 'trust' what we know or believe that everything is just so because scientists say that is the way it is. In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false. It just happens to be much close to the truth than we were 100 years ago.
What you are describing is how FAITH works. It is the opposite of how science works.
You must understand that the pursuit of science is rooted in the quest for grater and grater knowledge. There is no proof that the paranormal, telekinesis or God don't exist (you can't prove a negative) but there is a lack of proof for those things as well. That people don't put their faith in them existing is not close minded or 'accepting' anything. It is simply acknowledging that you are not going to believe in something that has no proof for you whatsoever. As they say, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster now do you? I chose to believe in the things that I can prove.
Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.
I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.
What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.
And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.
This wasn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to comment.
It's not so much that something doesn't exist because it can't be dealt with through scientific means, as that there's no reason to decide it DOES exist. This also speaks to the idea that people assign explanations to experiences they don't understand; it's not that someone didn't see SOMETHING, it's the idea of deciding it was a ghost that is an issue.
Put another way, I don't doubt that there are some paranormal explanations for unexplained event that differ depending on the society a person comes from. What one person sees as an alien craft, another sees as an angel, another sees as the spirits of their ancestors, etc.
There are doubtless many unexplained things that happen to people. It is the haphazard method of deciding how to explain those things in paranormal terms that bothers me.
?Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.
I don't know about predfan but I in no way shape or form believe that if we cannot currently prove it then is simply does not exist. If that is what he supports I can say that it is defiantly the opposite of science. Science does not eliminate any possibility. Those things are, however, a matter of faith.In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false.
Yes, you have pooh poohed and dismissed scientific principals because you have directly stated that scientific theory is a matter of faith. This is something that really annoys me because it is a complete lack of understanding in how science works. Simply put, science is not an exercise in faith at all. It requires evidence, testing and repeatability. These things are not faith whatsoever.I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.
What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.
Again, I don't think anyone actually prescribes to that view as that is inherently unscientific.And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.
?Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.
I actually said the exact opposite:
I don't know about predfan but I in no way shape or form believe that if we cannot currently prove it then is simply does not exist. If that is what he supports I can say that it is defiantly the opposite of science. Science does not eliminate any possibility. Those things are, however, a matter of faith.In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false.
Yes, you have pooh poohed and dismissed scientific principals because you have directly stated that scientific theory is a matter of faith. This is something that really annoys me because it is a complete lack of understanding in how science works. Simply put, science is not an exercise in faith at all. It requires evidence, testing and repeatability. These things are not faith whatsoever.I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.
What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.
Further, what you have experienced and seen are also not articles of faith. The fact that you seen something in your hall is not a matter of faith as that is a matter of experience. What you are demanding as its explanation IS FAITH. You are saying that it is a ghost. That is faith because such a thing cannot be tested, reproduced or tested in any way shape or form. Faith has already answered that question for you. I can show how it could be a thousand other things but no matter what evedense is shown to you, you are still going to claim it is a ghost because that is what you have put your faith in.
To tell you the truth: that is the closed minded approach. Science approaches the question of what was seen with an open mind, testing and experimenting until it can reproduce the given example and come up with a solution - whatever that solution may be. Should no solution present then the scientist states that they simply do not know. You, on the other hand, have started with a supernatural explanation.
Oh, and Einstein has never done any such thing
Again, I don't think anyone actually prescribes to that view as that is inherently unscientific.And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.
Gentle reminder: This thread is in the CDZ
The human race has perhaps always had notions of the paranormal and/or supernatural. We find references in some of the earliest recorded histories in all known cultures. More recently, we have added notions of the extraterrestrial to those things we are curious about.
Adding credibility to the notions is a growing body of people, many who seem to be quite intelligent, normal, and credible, who report encounters with paranormal or extraterrestial craft and/or beings.
This could even qualify as a quasi-political thread as both the paranormal and the extraterrestrial could qualify as threats to human safety and/or national security and for various other reasons. Certainly the government has been operating radio telescopes for some time and continues to research reported UFO sightings, etc. Waste of time? Or are you happy with some of our resources being devoted to that?
So what do you think? Yes? No? Maybe?
Personal experiences, logic, reason, and credible recorded histories are appropriate here.
I reject ghosts. The Spiritualist movement has been a fraud, as exposed by Harry Houdini, fo crying out loud.
For Aliens-
While I think it is possible that life evolved on other planets, the vast distances between stars make it unlikely we are being visited.
P.S. And why do you keep saying this is in the Clean Debate Zone, when it's not?
For me, it is not just that I haven't experienced the paranormal that makes me skeptical. It is that in almost every case I hear about there is a "normal" explanation within reach. Either the people who had the paranormal experience are drunk, or smoking weed, or doing some other drugs, or they are kind of wacky, suggestible people in the first place. And they tell you their stories and you're thinking, "Well, it could have been such and such." There is another explanation.
As for staring at the back of people's heads and they sense that and turn around...I don't think that's paranormal. I think that's normal. It's just extrasensory perception.
I used to be afraid to make comments like this when I was younger. I thought I would be taught a lesson by being subjected to some frightening paranormal experience. Swarmed by ghosts in my bed, or something. But now I know that's not going to happen. And I have actually hoped for signs from beyond at times, and most of my life been very receptive to such encounters.
But then I grew up.
That said, I hope there is something beyond this life (as long as it's good, that is!). But I don't think we get to find out until we actually go there. In other words, die.